Only private doctors ON covid duty covered by Govt insurance: HC denies relief to Deceased doctor's widow

A division bench of Justices S J Kathawalla and R I Chagla dismissed the case citing that the Rs 50 lakh insurance cover under a Central scheme included only those private medical practitioners who were requisitioned either by the state or the central government for serving Covid-19 patients ie. drafted for COVID-19 duties.

This came in view of a petition filed by Navi Mumbai resident Kiran Surgade seeking Rs 50 lakh cover under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY) for her doctor husband who died after contracting COVID-19 from a patient at his clinic.

According to the plea, the petitioner's husband, an Ayurveda doctor, got a notice from the commissioner of the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC), asking him to keep his dispensary open and warned action if he fails to comply with the notice.

The petitioner claimed that her husband opened the clinic and started treating patients, including those infected by a coronavirus and he too contracted the disease and died of it on June 10, 2020.

To mention, last year, the Central government announced that all healthcare workers at risk of contracting Covid could apply for insurance under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package. Under the scheme, claimants can receive up to Rs 50 lakh in case of death.

Accordingly, the petitioner applied for the Rs 50 lakh compensation under the PMGKY insurance package but the request was turned down on the ground that her husband was not serving in any hospital or government healthcare center and hence was not eligible.

Acting on the instant case, the court had earlier sought clarification from the Center as to whether private healthcare providers, who served during the COVID-19 pandemic and died after contracting the virus, are entitled to insurance cover available to Covid warriors.

Also Read: Bombay HC Asks Centre Whether Private Practitioners On COVID Duty Are Entitled To Rs 50 Lakh Insurance Cover

On the other hand, appearing for the Maharashtra government, advocate Kavita Solunke argued that the petitioner's services were not requisitioned and hence, he would not be eligible for the insurance cover.

Meanwhile, the New India Assurance Company Limited (NIACL), which was made as a respondent to the plea by the petitioner, denied granting any insurance benefits claiming that her husband was a private practitioner and not a government employee and that his services weren't drafted or requisitioned by the government.

At this, the petitioner argued that the doctor had initially shut his clinic and opened it only after the civic chief of Navi Mumbai issued a notice to him, ordering him to open his clinic.

"In the notice issued in March, an explanation was sought from the private doctors as to why their hospitals and dispensaries are kept closed. Pursuant to the said notice, my husband had to open his clinic and treat patients including those infected by the Covid-19 virus. He thus consequently himself got infected by the virus and died in June," the petitioner stated.

After hearing the contentions, the judges took note of a Union Department of Health and Family Welfare's October 15 reply to a letter by the state government to include all private health care providers/workers who continued delivery of healthcare during the pandemic under the scheme.

The reply said only such private practitioners whose services are requisitioned for Covid-related duties and responsibilities would be covered under the scheme.

"This letter categorically states that for a private healthcare provider to be covered under the scheme, he or she must be "drafted" by the state/Centre for Covid-related responsibilities,'' the judges said as quoted by TOI, adding that the letter states that no other group of healthcare workers can be included under the scheme.

The bench noted;

"The scheme clearly states that for a private healthcare provider to be covered under the scheme, he or she must be drafted or requisitioned by the state/Centre for COVID-19-related responsibilities."

Holding that the widow had not produced any other documentary proof to establish her husband's services were availed for treating or in relation to Covid-19, it observed,

'The petitioner would be necessarily required to prove that the doctor's services were in fact requisitioned/drafted in relation to COVID-19 duties by the state/Centre to seek application of the Scheme."

The court further said the NMMC notice only asked the petitioner's husband to keep his clinic open and the same cannot be construed as a notice requisitioning his services for the specific purpose of treating COVID-19 patients and/or working in a COVID-19 hospital. The court said;

'There is a difference between specifically requisitioning/drafting services and directing private practitioners to not keep their clinic closed. The intent and object of the NMMC notice was to encourage medical practitioners to keep their dispensaries open.'

The notice did not mandate that the said dispensaries are to be kept open for COVID-19, the court added.

Subsequently, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the overwhelming record showed that the doctor's services were not requisitioned as mandated under the scheme and "therefore the petitioner, cannot now avail of the scheme.